NO CIVILIAN-FREE CASUALTY ZONES IN WAR

Editor -- This country seems to have more armchair generals than the military.

All these experts talking about: where's the exit strategy; why are we in Europe; should we or shouldn't we send in ground troops, etc., are, for the most part, people with no direct connection to the NATO/Kosovo conflict and have too much free time on their hands.

We're in Kosovo leading NATO for one simple reason -- to prevent a third world war. In World War II about 70 million people died, including almost 400,000 Americans.

Let the political and military leaders run this war -- that's what we elect and/or pay them to do.

And, oh yes, in war, when it comes to casualties, there are no civilian casualty-free zones. In World War II civilians were some of the top targets. In Kosovo all civilian casualties can be laid on the dirty hands of Milosevic.

In the Vietnam War hundreds of thousands of civilians died and during the Tet Offensive (February 1968) about 500 American soldiers a week were killed.

Let's hope this war ends quickly, but be patient, for it may take more time than a normal TV show, which is what Americans are accustomed to.

BOB MULHOLLAND

(101st Airborne; Vietnam, 1967-68) Chico

'NEVER AGAIN'

EDitor -- It seems that "Never Again" has lost its meaning to people like Isadore Salkind (Letters, April 16). His list of reasons to ignore the rape, murder, box-car ethnic cleansing and brutality in Kosovo, has the ring of America in the late 1930s. Ignore the bullies of racial cleansing. Pretend not to see the Holocaust unfolding. Turn your head away from the explosion the Serbs are intent on igniting.

Ignore and pretend long enough, and then perhaps we will be forced to remember the meaning of "Never Again."

A REAL MESSAGE

Editor -- I, too, got the "Gas Out" e-mail. I got a good chuckle, then promptly deleted it. The copy that I got suggested that I buy gasoline either the day before or the day after April 30. Not buying gasoline for one day will do nothing for prices.

If people are so angry, why do something that is only symbolic? Not burning gasoline for one day would send a real message. Even better, sell that guzzler and buy something that gets better gas mileage. Going from 20 to 30 miles per gallon is like getting a 33 percent reduction in your fuel prices, every day. Alas, very few drivers are willing to actually cut their gasoline consumption. I am sure that oil executives are laughing (all the way to the bank) at these "angry" consumers.

I am no fan of the oil industry. Although I believe there is significant price fixing and that there should be better regulation, it is not the high price of gasoline that concerns me the most. I think that there should be a gasoline tax of at least $2 per gallon to pay for our highways and for better and more extensive public transportation. Long-distance commuters already get huge subsidies by using more than their fair share of public resources.

I fear that high-energy costs are the only thing that will force people to live more responsibly. And we have not reached that critical point where people will think twice about their gasoline consumption.

A WASTELAND

EDITor -- The Oakland Heritage Alliance opposition to the demolition of the Rubino Building on Lakeshore Avenue by the Gap epitomizes what is wrong with Oakland. While no one will argue that preservation of historic structures has a place within the construct of sound urban policy, it can also be argued that perpetuating the pervasive impression throughout the business world that Oakland is anti-business and is not worth the bother does the city far greater harm.

Oakland is a veritable wasteland of lost opportunities, abandoned projects and underutilized real estate. In this context, it seems to me that the OHA does the citizenry far more harm than good by filing suit and exerting far more influence on the economic life of Lakeshore and environs than it ought to.

Oakland would be far better off if more of its citizens embraced urban living and not reflexively resisted development and change. Oakland is a city; not a suburb. This city ought to be more vital, more densely populated and more open to enterprise and growth.

In this instance OHA is behaving in a provincial, spiteful and small- town manner. By using any means necessary to achieve its intended objective OHA has made far more enemies than friends and has relegated itself to a position of far less relevance and respect. Had OHA fought the good fight over a building of real and unmistakable significance it perhaps could have avoided the enmity of the neighborhood and the business community.

JONATHAN C. BREAULT

Oakland

GRAY'S TRUE COLORS

Editor -- Leave it to a lightweight Democrat like Gray Davis to reveal his true colors with regards to his lukewarm defense of Proposition 187. I guess to liberals like Davis it doesn't matter that an overwhelming majority of voters believe our policy toward illegal immigration is outdated, and needs to be drastically reversed due to bleeding-heart excess. Why are we spending any of our tax revenue on people who are not even Americans?

During Clinton's impeachment trial, liberals whined unmercifully about reversing two elections. Although that argument carried absolutely no weight, why then is the popular wish of the voters not being honored with this issue? It just goes to prove that Democrat is synonymous with hypocrite!

Editor -- It is imperative that we put an end to the harmful divisiveness that ensued over Prop 187. Unlike his predecessor, Governor Davis is offering each side the opportunity to work out their differences in a manner that does not demonize the other. Governor Davis has once again demonstrated that one can resolve conflict in a manner that is thoughtful, intelligent and sensitive to both sides -- mediation has been used as a successful model in the past. Now it's time for both sides to put aside the rhetoric and work to resolve this issue.

Governor Davis' decision to seek resolution of Proposition 187's legal issues through mediation services (as offered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit) is at the very least worth the time and energy we've expended so far.

Hopefully, all concerned in this case will quickly settle their differences and avoid unnecessary appeals, delays and more divisiveness. We must try to resolve this for the sake of the children, who through no fault of their own, call California "home."

FITTING THE MOLD

Editor -- Ken Garcia's critical column about the foot (April 15) although filled with amusing puns, is completely out of step. I can confirm, as a podiatrist, that the Buster Simpson image of the foot is not deformed but rather anatomically correct. Would he have wanted to select the shape of Venus Di Milo's breast or David's penis?

I know anatomical parts, especially feet, embarrass many people because they fear they, themselves, may not fit the mold. I would remind Mr. Garcia that the foot is what grounds us as human beings. John Muir's advice in his diary, "step into the light" was directed at Mr. Garcia's attitude.

Feet are as diverse as the people of San Francisco. What a perfect image for our city.

PAUL R. SHERER, D.P.M.

Professor, Department of Podiatric Surgery and Applied Biomechanics California
College
of Podiatric Medicine San Francisco

NOT A PRETTY PART

Editor -- I agree with Ken Garcia that we don't need that foot! Basically speaking, the foot is not the most attractive part of the human body. San Francisco is probably the most beautiful city in America, so why clutter it up with something so tasteless?

For a long time now many people have been discussing the fact that they do not like this foot. There have been a number of articles in the papers documenting its controversial nature. Let the foot take a walk.